seeing the noble Lord the Secretary for Ireland in his place, wished to ask whether the Government proposed to introduce any measure for regulating or restricting the parading of vast bodies of men dressed in scarfs, and accompanied by bands of music, for the purpose of promoting teetotalism?

said, that it was not the intention of the Government at present to introduce any measure for the regulation or restriction of temperance processions in Ireland. They were not conducted avowedly for any party purposes, and he should be loth to interfere with proceedings which had been beneficial to the lower order of people in Ireland.

as these processions had taken place for the last three years, begged to ask the noble Lord, whether any instance had been reported to the Government of any breach of the peace occurring by reason of any one of them?

could not answer the question decidedly; but he was not aware of any such instance having been reported.

begged also to put a question to the noble Lord. Some time since a Mr. St. George had been removed from the commission of the peace in Ireland, in consequence of a letter which he had thought fit to address to his noble Friend the late Lord-lieutenant of Ireland. An application was subsequently made to restore him to the position which he had formerly held, the answer to which was, that on his withdrawing, or apologising for the letter which he had written, there would be no objection to his restoration. It was now stated, however, that Mr. St. George had been restored to his position as a magistrate, without any apology, and without his withdrawing the offensive letter. He begged to ask the noble Lord whether Mr. St. George had apologised for that letter, or had withdrawn it.

said, that shortly after the appointment of the present Lord-lieutenant, a representation had been made to him by the whole of the magistrates for the county for which Mr. St. George acted, supported by the Lord-lieutenant of the county (the Marquess of Clanricarde) who recommended the case to the favourable consideration of the Government. The Lord Chancellor, however, was so strongly impressed with the impropriety of the letter, viewing it as an insult to the representative of the Sovereign, that he refused to comply with the application until an explanation had been given. Such an explanation had been given as had satisfied the Lord Chancellor, and he of his own motion, but with the entire concurrence of the Lord-lieutenant, had reinstated Mr. St. George.

wished to know, whe- ther in the letter written by Mr. St. George to the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, there was an apology for having written the letter to the Marquess of Normanby. He also wished to know whether there would be any objection to lay on the Table the correspondence on the subject between the Lord Chancellor of Ireland and Mr. St. George.

had no hesitation in saying that the apology that had been made appeared satisfactory to the Lord Chancellor. He knew that the Lord Chancellor had refused to restore that gentleman to the commission of the peace, when he was applied to by nearly the whole of the magistracy of the county, until a satisfactory explanation had been made to him. He was not prepared to say whether the communications that had passed were not more of a private than of a public nature. The decision of the whole matter belonged to the Lord Chancellor and he did not think that these papers could be produced.

wished to put a question to the right hon. Baronet, of very deep interest to the commerce of this country. There had lately been a modification of the Mexican tariff, which it was supposed would lead to an increase of our commerce with that country. It appeared, however, from a proclamation which had been inserted in the London Gazette, that the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs had received that document, announcing a blockade of the eastern coast of Mexico, by a Texican squadron. The publication of this proclamation in the London Gazette had caused great alarm amongst the mercantile classes trading to Mexico. He wished to know whether it were the intention of her Majesty's Government to sanction the blockade, and if it were not intended, then he wished to know why the proclamation had been allowed to be published in the London Gazette.

replied that the insertion of the proclamation in the Gazette was in conformity with the usual practice in similar cases. The notification in the Gazette was, that a blockade of the coast of Mexico was said to be instituted by the Republic of Texas. It was stated in this form, because there had been no official notification from the Texian authorities. Her Majesty's Government had received a communication from our Minister in America that such proclamation had been issued. The Government, therefore, deemed it to be their duty to give notice to the persons trading to Mexico that it had received such an intimation. The mere notification of the blockade by the proclamation of the Texian government did not make it a blockade in conformity with the law of nations, for the question then was, whether it were a bonâ fide blockade or not. If the blockade were bonâ fide, and according to the custom of this and other countries, it would be binding on us and must be observed. He would only add that he was extremely sorry that such a blockade had been either notified or instituted.

said the proclamation which had been issued respecting the gold coinage had occasioned great inconvenience, had put a stop to almost all payments, and as he had been informed, had most seriously prevented the payment of rents. He wished to ask whether the bank had the sanction of the Government in cutting sovereigns in two which were presented there, if they should be short in weight, and then, tell the persons who presented them that they might sell them where they could. He need hardly say what would be the loss occasioned by such conduct, in leaving the public at the mercy of Jew money brokers.

observed that the proclamation on the subject of the gold coinage which had recently been issued was merely a repetition of former proclamations which had been issued from time to time on the same subject, warning the public that sovereigns, below a certain weight, were not a legal tender. He was aware that the proceedings alluded to by the hon. Gentleman had caused great complaints, but the bank had now agreed to receive the light sovereigns at the Mint price of 3l. 17s. l0d. per oz. By this means he trusted they would soon withdraw the light gold coin from circulation.

wished to ask whether the Government had made up their minds to take up the subject on which almost the existence of the Scotch church depended, or whether they intended to allow the dis- cussion on the hon. Member for Argyle-shire's bill to come on on Monday.

said, the House would remember, that at the commencement of the Session, a question was put to him as to whether it was the intention of the Government to bring forward any measure to put a stop to matters which so seriously disturbed the Church of Scotland. He then stated, that after the most careful review of the subject, the Government had determined not to introduce any measure on the subject. So matters stood until the hon. Member for Argyleshire moved for leave to bring in a bill on the subject. The Government did not oppose the introduction of that measure, but a discussion took place, in which it was plainly intimated that to its principle her Majesty's Government was opposed, and that, at a future stage, they would consider it their duty to oppose its enactment. The consequence of that was, that communications were made to the Government from Scotland, which led the present Government to entertain a hope, not very confident, however, that legislative measures, founded on such principles as the Government would be able to support, might conduce to the peace of Scotland, and to the settlement of the disputed points. He had stated to the House that as matters stood at the time, he could not pledge himself to the introduction of such a measure, but that it would be the duty of Government very carefully to consider the representations made to them on the subject before they finally decided. That was on the eve of the meeting of the general assembly of Scotland. That assembly embodied the views of the general Church of Scotland. At the meetings of the assembly proceedings took place which were known to the House, and which he might be permitted to say he deeply deplored, though he would not characterise them by any harsh terms. Yet after careful reflection, he was bound to state to the House that the hope he had originally entertained on the subject had perished, and that Government stood in the same position with respect to the question as at the commencement of the Session. He could not hold out any expectation on the part of the Government, of any measure which would produce those effects which would alone justify their interference in the matter. Under these circumstances, it was open to the hon. Member for Argyleshire to move the second reading of his bill on Wednesday next, when an opportunity would be afforded for full explanation and further discussion on the subject. He therefore thought it would be inexpedient, particularly as the question which had been put to him had been so carefully limited, to enter on the present occasion upon anything like argument on the subject. However, he might be allowed to be explicit upon another point, namely, that it was the intention of Government to oppose the second reading of the bill.

said, that there was a document in existence respecting these proceedings alluded to by the right hon. Baronet, called the claims of right, and which was of a most important nature. He wished to ask whether, before the House proceeded to discuss the bill of the hon. Member for Argyleshire on Wednesday, the right hon. Baronet would have any objection to request her Majesty to lay a copy of this paper on the Table of the House.

was not then prepared to answer the question of the hon. and gallant Member, as no notice had been given that such a question would have been put.

wished to ask the hon. Member for Argyleshire, whether he intended to move the second reading of his bill on Wednesday.

said, that it was his intention to proceed with his bill on Wednesday next.

to move, that the writ for Nottingham should issue.

wished to know whether his hon. Friend intended to press this motion. He was ready to admit, that if his hon. Friend insisted on his right, that it was competent for him to bring it on, but he would put it to him whether it would be advisable for him to do so. ["Hear, hear!"]

observed, that the application of his right hon. Friend had not so much surprised him, as the cheers that had come from his right hon. Friend, the Member for Montgomeryshire, because his right hon. Friend agreed with him, that when a vacancy occurred, it was a matter of course that a writ should issue. If it was the opinion of the House, that he should not proceed, he would withdraw his motion. [Cries of" Go on"] He believed the impression of the House was, that he should at once proceed with his motion. [" No," and Hear!"] He thought he should best consult his duty, and at the same time, the prevalent feeling of the House, if he proceeded. He could not, indeed, hope, after the interruption, however good-natured, he had just experienced, that the motion he was about to make would be unopposed, but he threw himself with confidence upon the House. He was totally unconnected with the persons from whom the petition proceeded, and he presumed that the petition had been entrusted to him simply in consequence of the opinion he had expressed upon the subject of issuing writs in general. He did not seek in moving, that this writ should issue, to make the House stultify itself in reference to any of the proceedings which had been adopted upon the motion of the hon. and learned Member for Bath, or in connection with that motion. He did not ask the House to rescind any of the resolutions which stood on its journals respecting the issue of writs. On the day, that the vacancy was declared to exist in the representation of Nottingham, an hon. and learned Friend of his moved, that the Speaker do issue his warrant for the issue of a writ to fill that vacancy; that motion was not negatived it was met by a motion, which was carried, "that this House do now adjourn." On the 10th of May, the same motion was renewed by the hon. Member for Carlisle; that motion was not negatived; it was withdrawn: and, therefore, so far as the forms of the House were concerned, he was entitled to say, that he was not asking the House to violate any of its rules in reference to this case, but he was asking it to conform to its general rule of issuing a writ when a vacancy for any borough, city, or county is declared. He was not asking the House to take any proceedings which need baffle the object of the hon. and learned Member for Bath. The hon. and learned Member, it was true, had included Nottingham in the list of those boroughs which he had pointed out for inquiry; but all the other boroughs comprised in that inquiry were boroughs, the seats for which were occupied. It was only the happy accident of one of the seats for Nottingham having become vacant, that placed that borough in a different position from Read- ing, Penryn, and the other places which constituted the preamble of the hon. Member's bill,' there was no circumstance in the case which justified the exclusion of Nottingham from its fair share in the representation in Parliament. If there were, on what principle was it that the hon. and learned Gentleman had not moved the exclusion of the sitting Member for Nottingham? [Mr. Roebuck: Nothing has been proved yet.] The hon. and learned Member admitted, that as yet he had proved nothing. He thanked the hon. and learned Gentleman for that admission. He would ask, then, were they to disfranchise Nottingham, not only when no proof of its guilt had been given—not only when the sworn committee, after examining witnesses on oath, had made no damnatory reproof—but when the hon. and learned Member himself, upon whose allegation an inquiry into alleged bribery and corruption in this borough was to take place, admitted at once, very honestly and candidly, and very usefully for him, that he had no proof as yet against the constituency of this borough. Under such circumstances, he would contend, that Nottingham was fully entitled to that rule of law, which gave the benefit of a belief of innocence to every borough, to every constituency, to every body corporate, as well as to every individual who has not been proved guilty. There was no instance in the whole Parliamentary history of England in which a writ had been suspended, except on the report of a committee especially directing the attention of the House to the subject. In the present there was no such report, but only the allegation of one hon. Member, who, rising in his place in the House, and very dramatically pointing with his finger, first at his friends on his own side of the House, and then at his opponents on the other, gave forth an ipse dixit that this among the other boroughs, was tainted with corruption. He wished to call the attention of the House to some facts. On the 4th of May, a committee of that House reported by its Chairman, that "the committee appointed to try and determine the merits of the election for the borough of Nottingham, declared that Sir J. C. Hobhouse, Bart., and Sir G. de Hochpied Larpent had been duly elected." It appeared from the journals that no proceedings had subsequently taken place, as far as any resolution of the House was concerned, for vitiating the report of that committee, that these Gentlemen were bonâfide elected. Now, as regarded Sir George Larpent, he had yesterday received a letter from that Gentleman, the substance of which he felt it but an act of justice to his hon. Friend to state. It had been insinuated that Sir George Larpent had withdrawn from the House in order to avoid any proceedings which the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite might take. Now, the fact was — a fact which he had not been acquainted with till he received this communication, that for five weeks before the House had the report of the committee. Sir G. Larpent had been confined to his room by a severe medical and surgical malady, which had, indeed, for the greater part of the time kept him in bed; in fact, the hon. Gentleman had not been in the House of Commons since March. At the same, time, he did not mean to say, or suggest, or insinuate, that Sir G. Larpent was induced to accept the Chiltern Hundreds, in consequence of the state of his health; the case did not depend on the state of Sir G. Larpent's health one way or the other, but the fact that he had been so afflicted was sufficient to justify him from the imputation of having vacated his seat in order to avoid inquiry. But the case of Nottingham did not stand alone, nor alone in connection with the other boroughs which the hon. Member for Bath had brought forward. There were many other places to which the hon. and learned Gentleman might with equal advantage have directed his attention, because, strictly speaking, if the hon. Gentleman's proposition that the withdrawal of a Member from his seat in the House after the presentation of a petition against him on the ground of bribery were sufficient to justify another hon. Member in demanding an inquiry into the circumstances of such alleged bribery or corruption, then not merely Nottingham, Reading, Lewes, and the other places in question ought to be comprised in the hon. Gentleman's proposition, but a goodly list of other boroughs, Weymouth, to wit, Clitheroe, Belfast—not Belfast under the new report, but Belfast under the old petition—and a number of other places. He had looked over the whole list of petitions, and he found that besides the six into which inquiry was ordered, there were twenty-one cases in which allegations of bribery had been made, in which the prosecution of the petitions had been withdrawn, and other circumstances of which might seem to place them on the same footing as those boroughs specially named and included by the hon. and learned Member in his Witnesses Indemnity Bill. But the point at issue was this—not whether the hon. and learned Member for Bath was or was not consistent, in taking the six boroughs and not taking the other twenty-one cases, or, indeed, all the cases in which bribery was suggested; but whether he had laid before the House any sufficient grounds for excluding the electors of Nottingham from the exercise of their great constitutional right. The hon. Member for Bath, perhaps, would reply that the matter was not confined to his ipse dixit— that there was more in it than that—that a vehement suspicion had been added, from the circumstances that one Member for Nottingham had accepted the Chiltern Hundreds, and that the other right hon. Member had refused to answer the question put to him—circumstances which, by the peculiar reasoning of the hon. Gentleman, were supposed to afford a strong presumption of corruption. The hon. Member reasoned altogether in the way that the people formerly used to decide in cases of alleged witchcraft; if the accused when thrown into the water could swim, she was adjudged guilty and taken out and burnt; if she could not swim, she was allowed to be innocent, but then she was drowned; so, according to the hon. and learned Member for Bath, if an hon. Gentleman admitted, that a compromise had taken place, this admission at once proved him so guilty that he was not eligible to sit again; if, on the other hand, the hon. Member should, as Sir J. Hobhouse had done, refuse to answer, then this refusal would be made an equal proof of guilt, and the hon. and learned Member for Bath, at once proceeded in either case to move that the writ do not issue. The petition which he presented from Nottingham, and which had been printed with the votes, stated the case of the petitioners in a manner so clear and temperate, that did he not suppose every Gentleman present, who had to act that night judicially, whether in giving or refusing his vote for the issue of the writ. had made himself master of this document, he should have been tempted to trespass on the patience of the House by quoting largely from it; as it was he should call the attention of hon. Gentlemen to two or three particular points in the petition. It stated— "

That in consequence of the vacancy thus occasioned, your petitioners expected that your honourable House would have forthwith directed the clerk of the Crown to issue a new writ to the sheriff of the town and county of the town of Nottingham, ordering him to take the usual legal measures for the election of a burgess to serve in the present Parliament for the said borough; but that up to the present moment your honourable House has abstained from giving any such directions, to the great disappointment and manifest grievance of your petitioners. That your petitioners have been informed, and verily believe, that a writ for a new election for the town and borough of Nottingham—which they claim as a right and privilege belonging to the said borough, of which they ought not and cannot be legally divested, at the arbitrary will and pleasure of any single branch of the Legislature—has been withheld from them on the mere surmise and allegation of an individual Member of your honourable House, thus stated in your printed votes:—That a corrupt compromise has been entered into in the case of the election petition from Nottingham, for the purpose of avoiding investigation into the gross bribery alleged to have been practised at the election for the aforesaid town. That, if any such corrupt compromise has been entered into, your petitioners are ignorant of its nature, and are in no respect parties to its stipulations; and they, therefore, submit to your honourable House that they ought not to be punished, even by the temporary suspension of their franchises, for an offence of which they are not guilty, and in which they disclaim all participation. That, although grievous allegations have been made against your petitioners on the score of gross bribery practised at the last general election, no proof has yet been adduced in support of such allegations; but that, nevertheless, your petitioners have been condemned to the deprivation of the services of one of their representatives in Parliament without having had an opportunity afforded them to make any defence against such charges—a course of proceeding which they firmly but respectfully maintain to be unknown in the history of Parliament, and in the practice of the courts of law, and to be contrary to the immutable laws of substantial justice. That the law of the land regulates the issue of all writs on vacancies occasioned in your honourable House by deaths, by unjust returns, by the acceptance of office, and by other causes which it is unnecessary to enumerate, and that any new restraint upon the issue of such writs, cannot be legally imposed without the assent of all the three branches of the Legislature. That in all the other cases in which your honourable House has proceeded against boroughs for gross and extensive bribery, it has never suspended the writ until it has received a report from one of its own select committees, declaring that the sitting Members had been guilty by themselves, or agents of such bribery, and no committee has ever yet come to such a report without hearing counsel, and examining witnesses on both sides, in confirmation and refutation of such charges. That in the instance of your petitioners, all these safeguards of justice have been disregarded and set aside, and your petitioners, feeling how deeply they have been aggrieved in being condemned without proof, and in being punished without conviction, implore your honourable House to reconsider the propriety of directing a new writ to issue for the borough of Nottingham."

Now, did the hon. Gentleman mean to tell the House that the individuals signing this petition were parties to the compromise? At the last election, speaking from recollection, there were, he believed, 529 votes for Sir G. Larpent, 527 for Sir J. C. Hobhouse, and 147 and 127 for the other two candidates respectively, showing an aggregate which very little exceeded the number of electors whose petition he had presented, and who declared in that petition that if any such corrupt compromise had been entered into, they were ignorant of its nature, and in no respect parties to its stipulations; and not merely that, but that they were no parties to any of those corrupt practices included in the allegations of the hon. and learned Member for Bath, which the House had been pleased thus far to sanction. The petitioners state, "

That, although grievous allegations have been made against your petitioners on the score of gross bribery practised at the last general election, no proof has yet been adduced in support of such allegations; but that, nevertheless, your petitioners have been condemned to the deprivation of the services of one of their representatives in Parliament without having had an opportunity afforded them to make any defence against such charges —a course of proceeding which they firmly but respectfully maintain to be unknown in the history of Parliament and in the practice of the courts of law, and to be contrary to the immutable laws of substantial justice. That the law of the land regulates the issue of all writs on vacancies occasioned in your honourable House by deaths, by unjust returns, by the acceptance of office, and by other causes which it is unnecessary to enumerate, and that any new restraint upon the issue of such writs cannot be legally imposed without the assent of all the three branches of the Legislature. That in all the other cases in which your honourable House has proceeded against boroughs for gross and extensive bribery, it has never suspended the writ until it has received a report from one of its own select committees, declaring that the sitting Members had been guilty by themselves or agents of such bribery, and no committee has ever yet come to such a re- port without hearing counsel and examining witnesses on both sides in confirmation and refutation of such charges."

In this case the writ had been suspended, not by any order of the House, but upon what the right hon. Baronet the Member for Devon port called a tacit understanding. His right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Treasury admitted—he believed he ought to apologize to him for using the word, for it was a full and free admission, his right hon. Friend had rather maintained that the issuing of the writ was right, and ought not to be withheld except for a reasonable time, and upon good cause being shown. He asked the House, then, whether he was not entitled, upon the 10th of June, to ask the Speaker to take the necessary steps for issuing the writ? and whether a reasonable time, had not elapsed, and a good cause had not been shown" what was a reasonable time was a question which could not be fixed by statute; but must be left to the feelings, the principles, and the judgment of the House to determine. He would say five weeks, even on the report of a committee charging a borough with corruption, which was not the case in this instance, but that even then, if no proceeding had been taken to disfranchise the borough, five weeks would have been sufficient time to have been allowed to elapse in order to justify the House in ordering the issue of the writ. Then with regard to "good cause being shown;" the hon. and learned Gentleman himself admitted that he had as yet shown no cause for the suspension of the writ, although five weeks ago he alleged that a corrupt compromise had been entered into by the withdrawal from the House of one of the hon Members. The petitioners also stated that "

They likewise submit with all deference and respect to your honourable House, that the right of the electors of Nottingham to their writ, and a right which has belonged to them for some centuries, not derived from the House of Commons, and therefore not to be taken away by the House of Commons, except upon proof satisfactory to both Houses of Parliament that the electors have offended grievously against the law, and have therefore individually and collectively, forfeited their title to this privilege, which is and must be exercised under the law."

It was a right which, he contended, could only be properly taken away by a bill, that bill becoming an act of the entire Legislature. But, at all events, let them not take it away upon the allegation of an individual member, however learned and acute he might be; let them not do upon the authority of one man that which they had never done before, unless upon the report of a committee, supported by the sworn evidence which was taken before it. Upon these grounds he called upon the House not to refuse to issue a new writ for the borough of Nottingham. To withhold it under the circumstances he had stated, was to substitue allegation for truth it was to punish without trial, and even without indictment — it was to punish those who might be innocent as much as if all had been proved to have been guilty; or, admitting, that some were guilty, it was to punish one hundred innocent men in order that ten might not escape. He had already shown that 1,257 of the electors were no parties 1o the alleged compromise, and, moreover, were not guilty of those corrupt practices to which that compromise was stated by the boo. and learned Member for Bath to have been owing. He was willing to admit, if a legislative measure involving these boroughs were before Parliament, even though it should not have proceeded through that House, that the legal right of those parties might be suspended; but as he felt he was asking for them no more than any hon. Member would feel himself entitled to ask for any borough whose guilt had not only not been proved, but whose innocence had not been suspected, he should conclude by moving, that the Speaker do issue his warrant to the Clerk of the Crown to make out a new writ for the borough of Nottingham in the room of Sir G. de Hochepied Larpent, Hart., who since his election has accepted the office of Steward of the Chiltern Hundreds.

in seconding this motion, said he had no interest whatever in the matter, except the natural and pardonable interest which any man may be supposed to have in the principal town of the county to which he belongs. He considered that, except in cases of the last necessity, a borough had a right to receive the writ, when a vacancy occurred—that it was no light matter to suspend the privileges of such a borough as Nottingham, and to keep a town, containing 60,000 inhabitants, unrepresented for an indefinite period. And what are the grounds upon which the privileges of Nottingham are suspended? There was nothing before the House but the Report of the Commit- tee, and the Report of the Committee had neither substantiated, nor even brought any charge against Nottingham. The rest was all rumour — reports heard in the streets; and were the privileges of Nottingham to be suspended upon such grounds as no magistrate would think sufficient for detaining the humblest of her Majesty's subjects? And upon what principle of justice was the writ refused to Nottingham, when it had been granted to Ipswich and Newcastle? Would the House let off those against whom something had been proved, and punish Nottingham against which nothing had been brought forward? How would the public be able to understand transactions of so partial and capricious a character? He did not stand there to defend bribery. It would be better for all if no such thing existed. Bribery was the very reverse of charity: it is twice cursed—it curseth him that gives and him that takes; and whatever might have been the amount expended upon the last election, of this they might be sure, that every farthing of it was spent in drink and riot, and not a shilling of it remained to do good to a human being. But that House, in its eagerness to put down bribery, ought not to overstep the bounds of moderation. The elective franchise of a borough used to be considered a very grave matter— a matter of such importance and value, that that House had always been slow to entertain any motion having a tendency to destroy that privilege; but now it was quite another thing. Now because the "Simon Pure" of that House, who was constantly telling them that he was the only honest man, it chose to get up and put a string of the most irregular and disorderly interrogations (such interrogations as he trusted that House would never allow to be put again), that House had been frightened out of its usual course —seven boroughs had been trundled at once, most unceremoniously, into the little green bag of the hon. and learned Member for Bath, and indemnified culprits were invited to come and begrime them with anything they pleased. He could not approve of such reckless and precipitate proceedings— much less could he approve when that House went further, and condemned by anticipation — suspended writs without a tittle of evidence, and where nothing but rumour had whispered reproach. If that House per- sisted in so indecent and unjust a course, it would do anything but raise itself in the opinion of the community at large. Agreeing, therefore, in the sentiments of the petitioners that the withholding of the writ was unconstitutional, unprecedented, and that it tended to destroy all electoral rights, he most cordially seconded the motion of his hon. Friend.

said, if upon the statement which I made to this House I had asked the House to suspend the writ for Nottingham, then the appeal of hon. Members to me would have been pertinent; but, under the present circumstances, that appeal might be described by a much more applicable phrase. What was done was done by this House, and with the approbation of the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government. I never spoke upon the motion. I never expressed an opinion upon it. Why, therefore, am I to be assailed by the virtue of the hon. Baronet, the Member for the University of Oxford, and the supereminent and sublime virtue of the hon. Member for Nottinghamshire? He says I am the Simon Pure of the House, that I am invariably telling the House that I am the only honest man in it. I ask, is that a true statement? I ask him to say, to the best of his knowledge, have I ever told the House that I am the only honest man in it? If I have not, what is the value of the hon. Member's statement? But have I ever said so? [Mr. G. Knight over and over again.] I suppose it was the same sort of virtue which induced the hon. Member to make that assertion that compelled him to cry out against the Whig Ministry before they had quitted office, and then ingenuously to confess that he intended another thing. That was to say, when he cried out against their liberality he only meant their persons; it was not the thing, but the persons he disliked. The hon. Member knew very well the meaning of what he said, although what he said in June he denies in January; what he means in January is very different from what he said in June. The hon. Member said, and I put it to all the hon. Members sitting on the same Bench with him, whether it be a fair statement, that when I brought forward this measure I grounded it on my own individual honesty? I said nothing of myself. What, then, is the worth of the hon. Gentleman's statement? I have charged certain Mem- bers in this House with a particular proceeding, which they have not had the courage to deny. Some acknowledged it, while others refused an answer; but in the case of Nottingham, I said, that a compromise had been entered into. I said, that bribery had been charged against the sitting Members, and that for the purpose of avoiding the investigation into that bribery it was agreed, that one of those Members should retire; and accordingly one of them, on the very night of the arrangement, did accept the Chiltern Hundreds. What said the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Tamworth? Why, that this was a circumstance pregnant with suspicion. I appeal, therefore, not to that sort of technical knowledge so much resorted to by the hon. Member for Oxford, but to the common sense of the House, in justification of the course I have pursued. I am not a casuist. I am a lawyer, it is true, but not in this House. In this House I am a legislator, acting upon that sort of knowledge which is of service to the country. What did the right hon. Baronet say? He said, that this was a case pregnant with suspicion. Now, the hon. Member for Oxford University, tells us that Sir Somebody Something Larpent has retired on account of ill-health. That was the hon. Mover's account. That was what he said. Will he repeat it—will he say it again? I say he retired because he wished to avoid, not my question, that was not it— but an investigation into a charge of bribery. Now, is that denied? What said the right hon. Baronet upon the point? Why, he told us, that the case was so pregnant with suspicion, that he thought the writ ought to be suspended. But what have I to do with that? Did I speak upon the question? Did I vote upon the question? When I heard of the circumstances I told you the case was a case of suspicion, and you said wisely, "We will inquire into it." But I see what your tactics are now. I see perfectly well what you are about. It is to make an onslaught on me, that you came down to this House. Perhaps before I have done, you will see what is the real value of your onslaught? Tell me fairly— what was the hon. Member's statement? Was it not that I was the Simon Pure of this House, that I grounded my motion not upon public principle, but on a statement that I was the only honest man within these walls? Now, I tell the hon. Member I never said that. I never spoke such words. Then how am I mixed up with this matter? Why am I, and I only, to be assailed? I had nothing to do with it —Oh, I see the hon. Member for Oxford shake his head!—but I tell him I had nothing to do with it, and so much is this the fact, that knowing the motion was to come on, I discussed with myself yesterday what course I should take, whether I should vote or not, whether I should speak or not, whether I should be present or not, and the consequence was, that I deliberately stayed away. Then why am I assailed 1 why am I to be selected for special attack? I repeat, I never said a word about Nottingham. I never uttered a sentence against issuing a writ for Nottingham. I contented myself with the conviction, that the judgment of this House was sanctioned by the right hon. Baronet, and I purposely avoided interfering. I said I would have nothing to do with it, and I kept my word. Can any one say I have interfered? No. Is there a record in this House of my interference? No. Is there a report of a single speech I have made on the subject? No. Then I put it to the hon. Member—I put it to him as an honest man, can he say that I had anything to do with it? But let us come to facts. Whilst one party says there is no proof of bribery or corrupt compromise, another party allege that in Nottingham a foul conspiracy exists to cheat the people of England, to cheat the independent electors of England, to cheat them by buying with gold the voices of the people of that borough. ["Hear."] Ay, hear, hear, hear. We know what that cry implies. We know that there are some who think it but a very venial offence. I am well aware that many of you think it no crime so to impose yourselves upon the people. Wealth, in your estimation, covers a multitude of sins; but in my opinion the wealthy briber, whose sins seem covered by his gold, is much more guilty than the needy bribed, whose sin is created by the influence of the tempting gain. But do you defend bribery—do you shield the real guilt? And then I want to know, where is your tenderness of conscience? Is it the rich candidate you care for, or the poor elector? For whom have you such soft and tender sympathies? I know you tell us you are only seeking to uphold the privileges of the people. You say you have great regard for the people and their privileges; so have I. And my way to uphold them is, to prevent their being bought and sold like the sheep you bring to the shambles. I have a great regard for those privileges, and that is why I brought this matter under the notice of the House. It was no desire to sanctify immorality; it was no desire to exculpate vice that influenced my conduct; but standing up in my place, I thought, and still think, that I was best doing my duty when I said, "You and your rights shall not be bought and sold for gold, and he who attempts to perpetrate such an iniquity shall be fixed and crucified before the people." That was my design before, that is my desire now; and yet between me and my just object comes the hon. Baronet, the Member for Oxford University—he comes and spreads the influence of his name over the cause—he comes with his friend beside him and attacks me—I, who never asked for the suspension of the writ—I, who up to this time never said one word upon the subject, and who would not have spoken a single syllable now, if I had not been so pointedly alluded to. And the personal reference of one of those speakers I must say I consider to have been couched in anything but language consonant with the rules of this House. He is a Member whom I never imitated here. I may safely say, that up to-night I have never cared to refer to him, much less have I ever condescended to nickname him. I ask him, then, how he reconciles it to his conscience to nickname me, to designate me by the undeserved appellation of Simon Pure? [Laughter] Aye, the hon. Member may laugh. If I chose, however, to exercise that sort of power towards him, perhaps I should make him feel very uncomfortable. But what I say is, that I have done nothing, that I have said nothing, upon the subject of the suspension of this writ. I appeal to the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government. I appeal to him if I have said one word or done one act to influence his opinion, and I ask if his opinion does not influence, and deservedly influence this House? The right hon. Baronet took a particular course upon this subject. My course has been consistent throughout. I voted against issuing the Ipswich writ, and I shall now vote against issuing the Nottingham writ. The right hon. Baronet saw or fancied a difference between the cases —he voted for issuing the writ in the one case and suspending it in the other. He sees a difference—I do not. The distinction he fancies has no influence on my mind;—it had an influence on his mind, and I have no right to presume otherwise than that he acted in accordance with that influence. But, whether inconsistent or not, I see, in all his proceedings, a great regard and care for the purity and the privileges of this House; and it is not for me in any way to question the motives of his conduct. That conduct is his own— he it is who has guided this House, and the responsibility, such as it is, must rest on his own head. If, therefore, the hon. Member for the University and his Friend and co-operator in this matter had fairly considered the state of parties—if they had only reflected who guided this House — if they had been disposed to act fairly and candidly upon such reflection—why, then, the two hon. Gentlemen might have pointed the finger of reproach at the leader of their own party, and not have troubled themselves to cross the House for the purpose of attacking me: the responsibility, I say, rests with him— you have acted on the judgment of the right hon. Baronet, and you are now, it seems, very much ashamed of what you you have done.

had not intended to convey anything personally offensive, by styling the hon. Member for Bath a Simon Pure.

said, that he could assure the hon. Member for Bath, that he was never inclined to shrink from any responsibility that properly belonged to him. If he had used any influence on the matter now before the House, he must, at the same time, state, that it was the influence which reason—and reason alone—gave him; for, as he had before said, on more than one occasion, he looked on questions of this sort as questions solely of a judicial nature, and he never intended to act with regard to them, under any other influence than that which his own reason supplied with reference to the judicial merits of each particular case. At the same time, he must also state that he felt perfectly satisfied with the vote he had given on this subject when it was previously discussed, and that he intended to give a vote to the same effect upon the present occasion. He could not say, that he thought it would be at all satisfactory to the country, that they should lay it down that the result of an investigation by an election committee, should, in all cases be perfectly and entirely conclusive. When the House appointed a committee to inquire into or decide upon a question appertaining to their rights, it did not follow, that they also parted with the general right of subsequent inquiry; and, supposing they passed a measure last Session, for the more effectual checking of bribery, and the result was, that inquiry was evaded, and that corrupt compromises were entered into, it surely could not be satisfactory to the nation, that the measures intended to be remedial, should be defeated by the stoppage of inquiry at the point where the compromise commenced. It was impossible to suppose that any measure of such a description was intended to close the House against the more general investigation. He had said before, that he thought each of those cases, they being all of a judicial nature, ought to be treated on their peculiar merits. He knew the imputations to which the expression of this opinion would subject him from the hon. and learned Member opposite (Mr. Roebuck), as well as from others, but, at the same time, he did not see how they could otherwise arrive at satisfactory conclusions; indeed, he did not hesitate to say, that he thought it quite impossible to apply one universal rule to these cases without reference to the evidence in each. He now came to speak of the case of Nottingham. What was the course of proceeding on the motion for the issuing of the new writ being previously submitted? The House had determined to appoint a committee of inquiry into certain alleged corrupt compromises of election petitions, and under these circumstances, it was stated to the House, that the proceedings before the Nottingham committee had concluded, and that they had been brought to a close in consequence of a compromise of the nature described. It was also alleged, that there had been extensive bribery at Nottingham, and that, in consequence, further inquiry should be made. The Nottingham Election Committee, almost at the same time, reported to the House, that the two sitting: Members had been rightly returned as representatives in Parliament for the borough; but it was found the very next day, that one of those hon. Members had vacated his seat. It was possible, that that cir- cumstance might be accounted for. It might be said, as had been hinted tonight, that that hon. Member retired in consequence of ill-health. [" No, no!"] If that were not meant to be implied, he did not quite understand why any reference to ill health should have been made at all. If it had been meant, that ill health prevented the hon. Member from attending the House, then he could have understood his hon. Friend when he referred to it, but as the question stood, he must set aside that consideration. Well, then, he understood the hon. Member for Bath to say this was not only a vacant seat, of which, indeed, they had conclusive proof, but a bond had been given, or else a sum of money had passed, for the purpose of insuring the return of another Member for Nottingham, of opposite politics to the hon. Member who retired. Then the question arose of issuing the writ. Why, he must say, that under these circumstances, when they heard of 4,000l. or 5,000l. being paid or received, the meaning of which was to obtain and insure the return of a Member of opposite political principles to the Member retiring —when, he said, he heard of such statements, he must say he thought they ought not to issue the writ; and further, that there was a fair cause for inquiry by the House; the more especially, too, as the rights of the electors would not be prejudiced. He must say this, that to find a Member seated by the return of the committee, then to find, that there was a retirement immediately subsequent, together with an allegation that a sum of money had been paid — finding all this, he must say, that he retained his opinion, that it would not be for the credit of the House of Commons that such statements should be made and that no inquiry should be instituted. On that principle he should give his vote against the motion.

said, that he considered the House was not possessed of fair and just grounds for deciding in favour of the further suspension of this writ. An inquiry into the circumstances of the alleged compromise was necessary, but the House had clearly no right to prevent the return Of a representative for the borough, and least of all ought they to attempt to do so, when such important questions were under discussion, as those now before that House. If he thought for one moment, that the issuing of the writ would prevent or throw any impediments in the way of the inquiry, he should be the last man in that House to support the motion for issuing it, but as he did not think, that the doing: this act of justice to the electors would be attended with any such effect, he should give his vote in favour of the motion.

said, that with reference to what had fallen from the hon. Member for Oxford University in the earlier portion of his speech that evening, taking the strict right of the law, a Member had certainly the power to make any motion he pleased; and even if the repeal of the union were pressed upon them for discussion, there would be nothing irregular in the proceeding, though it was very doubtful how far the House would agree to it. At the same time, however, when the House had once shewn its disapprobation of a proposition like the present, it was more convenient, more in accordance with the rule of the House, if the ordinary notice were given of the intention to bring the subject under discussion. With respect to this motion, he must own, that it seemed to him to rest on exactly the same ground as when it was previously debated. It then appeared to be the general sense of the House, that having appointed a committee to inquire into certain allegations of bribery and corrupt compromises, it would be inconsistent with the appointment of that committee, that the writ should be issued. What, then, had happened since that discussion? Had there been any delay? Unquestionably, there had been delay, but that delay was caused solely by the pressure of other business, which the House thought of more urgent importance. Certainly, the hon. Member for Bath was not responsible for the delay, for he had not been at all wanting in his endeavours to press the bill, which he thought essential to the business of his committee, whenever an opportunity of so pressing it had presented itself. It seemed to him, therefore, that the question resting on precisely the same ground as before, very little argument was requited to induce the House not to alter the decision they had previously arrived at. He had heard it objected in some quarter, that the allegations of corrupt compromise were not of themselves a sufficient ground for inquiry. There was a case, however, which occurred in 1725, in which a compromise of this nature was alleged, and after an examination by a select committee of election, the sitting Member was expelled. On that I occasion, too, the House only by a very small majority rejected a resolution which was moved having special reference to the case. He mentioned this circumstance, as he understood it had been said by some parties, that this was not a case requiring such a proceeding.

begged leave, as one of the electors of the borough of Nottingham, to request, both in his own name, and in the name of the greater portion of his brother electors, that the hon. Member for Bath would prosecute this inquiry with the utmost assiduity and perseverance. Heavy charges had been made against the town—charges which had caused the name of Nottingham to become a by-word. It was due to the electors, and he demanded in their name, that those charges should be sifted.

would not have presented himself to the House, had it not been, that he had been misapprehended by the right hon. Baronet, the First Lord of the Treasury. He had not referred to the letter of Sir G. Larpent to make it appear, that illness was the cause of that gentleman's resignation; on the contrary, he had, as he almost feared, with tautology, endeavoured to impress it upon those who heard him, that he did not attribute the course which Sir G. Larpent thought proper to adopt to ill-health; but he had said, that owing to the state of Sir George's health for five weeks before and five weeks after the period alluded to, Sir George had not been able to attend and answer the allegations which had been made. He hoped his right hon. Friend at the head of the Government, would excuse him for thinking, that the arguments used by him referred more to the case of the candidate than the petitioners, and the inquiry could be as well proceeded with if the writ were issued, as it would if it were withheld. The hon. Member for Bath said, he was no party to the case, and wondered, that he did not address the right hon. Baronet rather than address the hon. and learned Member on the subject. Now, the hon. and learned Member for Bath had been the first to cry out "Mad dog." The hon. and learned Gentleman had permitted himself to address language to the whole of those on his side of the House, and to attribute motives to them to the imputation of which some of them were not liable. The right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government would be the first to disown the power which the hon. and learned Member for Bath attributed to him, and but that he did not think the matter sufficiently serious he would have called the hon. and learned Gentleman to order when he stated that his right hon. Friend could command him, and those on that (the Ministerial) side of the House. They were as little willing to call his right hon. Friend master as was the hon. Member for Bath himself, or any other hon. Gentleman opposite. Though no person could be more sensible than he of the merits of his right hon. Friend, who had so frequently obtained the praise of the hon. and learned Member for Bath, he would never consent to call his right hon. Friend master.

wished to say a few words in explanation. The argument which he used was, that he thought the present case was a peculiar one, from the fact of its being alleged that a gentleman who agreed in opinion with the majority of the constituency of Nottingham had lodged a sum of money with a view to aid the return to Parliament of a person opposed to him and his constituents in opinion. Such an allegation was so important that it would be highly desirable to have its truth sifted, and he considered that it was for the interest of the constituency themselves thoroughly to understand the nature of the transaction.

moved the third reading of the Witnesses' Indemnity Bill. The crime about which they were inquiring was one that could not be committed by a single person—there must be the briber as well as the bribed. The crime, unfortunately too, was one not branded by society, but rather looked upon with toleration. It would be frequently found that a party would be willing to make disclosures as to himself, but not as to others. Persons would object to involve their friends, and one of the objects of the bill was to remove that impediment from arriving at the truth. The inquiry was not one the object of which was vengeance nor punishment—it was for legislation. They wanted to know how these crimes were committed, in order that they might hereafter prevent an occurrence of them, through legislation. What he wanted was a thorough and searching inquiry. Two objections had been made to the present bill; one was its novelty, the other the mischief that it might do. The mere novelty was not so strong an objection that it should appear insuperable; and then as to the mischief, he certainly could see no danger in the House granting the powers that he sought for. He hoped they would be granted, in order that the committee might search to the bottom of these transactions. If they were not, the inquiry, he feared, would be truncated, and not give that satisfaction which it was otherwise calculated to produce.

said, the present bill went far beyond all other precedents, and was fraught, if adopted, with considerable danger. The first clause gave a power to the chairman to give to the party under examination a certificate, stating that such person had made a faithful disclosure, and that certificate was to have the effect of a complete indemnity with respect to all things that either he or she had been examined before the committee, and not going beyond that. The second clause enacted as follows:— "

And be it enacted, that it shall be lawful for such committee, at its discretion, to make a report to the House of Parliament by which it shall have been appointed, certifying that any witness examined by or before it, or any person touching whom evidence shall have been given before it, shall be saved harmless from all proceedings, and such person so mentioned in such report shall be and is hereby freed, indemnified, and discharged of, from, and against all penal actions, forfeitures, punishments, disabilities, incapacities, and all criminal prosecutions which he or she may have been or may become liable or subject to, or which he or she may have incurred or may incur at the suit of her Majesty, her heirs or successors, or any other person or persons, for or by reason or means of or in relation to any act, matter, or thing done or committed by such person in respect of or connection with or compassing of the withdrawing or of having withdrawn, compromised, or abandoned any election petition or petitions relating to the boroughs or places before-mentioned, or in anywise relating thereto, or to any bribery, corruption, or intimidation, at any election or elections of Members to serve in Parliament, at any time whatsoever."

No act of indemnity before this had ever gone beyond the giving indemnity to the witness examined, and with regard to the matter upon which he had been examined. The present bill, however, proposed to give to the individual witness an indemnity on every matter of bribery on every other election whatever that he might choose to give evidence; but the bill also proposed to extend the indemnity to individuals who did not give evidence, but who might be named in the report. He opposed the bill in this part, because here it went beyond the established precedents. On the other parts of the bill he surrendered his own opinion, because of the established precedents. He meant to throw no other impediment in the way of the bill, if the second clause were removed. There had been very few bills of this description. The first was in 1805, upon the impeachment of Lord Melville. In 1819, there was the Barnstaple case, and then the Grampound case—and then followed Penrhyn, Retford, and Stafford, and then came this case. What the hon. and learned Gentleman was anxious for, was to give to each witness the motive to tell the truth. Let them, he said, do nothing to get rid of that protection which the law gave, that no man was bound to criminate himself. The law justified a man in protecting himself, but not in protecting another. If they gave that power, it would stamp the transaction with the character of bribery. To the second clause he had a very great objection, and after the bill had been read a third time he meant to propose that the clause he ob- jected to should be struck out; and that being done, he wished his hon. and learned Friend the success that he hoped for, although he owned he was not very sanguine on the subject.

said, the present instance showed that bills ought not to be allowed to be read a third time from any considerations of personal convenience. He thought the objections to the bill ought to have been taken at an earlier period. He objected to this bill because it proposed not only to indemnify witnesses but parties also. This bill would have the effect of promoting a betrayal of confidence between a principal and his agent. Would not the effect of the measure be, if it were effectual, to compel an hon. Member and his solicitor also to disclose matters, which, if they were before the Court of Queen's Bench, they could not be compelled to disclose? He asked this because he understood that the object of the hon. Member for Bath was inquiry, not punishment. He thought, that, however good the object, there were many good objects that could only be attained by means so bad as that their success would be very dearly purchased. He concurred in the observations of his hon. And learned Friend the Attorney-general, and he hoped that the hon. Member for Bath would intimate his intention to withdraw his clause.

could not give his consent to this clause of the bill. He thought it going too far to indemnify, not only witnesses, but also to identify parties respecting whom evidence had been given. There was another objection, and it was this. By what means would they compel the witnesses to give evidence? The indemnity which this bill proposed was when the committee reported that the witness had given true and faithful evidence. How would the witness be sure that the committee would so report, and when a witness went before the committee he would still have a right to object to answer, on the ground that his answer might criminate himself. In 1836 he, in conjunction with the late Mr. Ord, then a Member of the late Administration, brought in a bill which contained a clause for the purpose of discovering bribery. This clause met the unanimous concurrence of that House. But the bill did not afterwards pass the House of Lords, partly on account of the approaching termination of the Session. The effect of the clause was, that they should be able to compel every one who might be called on to give evidence in an inquiry respecting bribery. The clause provided, that after the passing of that act nobody should be entitled to object to be examined as a witness, or to answer any questions, either before that House or a committee of the House, on the ground that his doing so might criminate himself; and the clause further provided, that any answer so given could not afterwards be used against the witness, unless upon a prosecution for perjury. He thought that a provision of this kind would answer all the purposes of justice, and would be more effectual than the bill of the hon. and learned Member for Bath. The bill did not stop at giving indemnity to witnesses, but extended it to all whom their evidence might implicate, and this he thought a monstrous provision.

could not go with the bill, as far as the second clause relieved persons from prosecution against whom witnesses might have given evidence as having been concerned in bribery, and he would recommend his hon. Friend to withdraw the clause. He would take this opportunity of protesting against that leaning of the legal mind which he had heard exhibited in favour of what was considered to be a sound legal maxim, which prevented people from answering questions which might tend to criminate themselves. It was a principle unknown in any system of jurisprudence except that of this country. He did not know one principle so well calculated to prevent the discovery of criminality. Lord Denman had laid it down, that any fact which might connect itself with anything which had a tendency to criminate the witness might be concealed. An instance occurred last year of the baneful effects to the ends of justice of the maxim in question on a trial in the House of Lords. An objection was made by counsel on that ground. What was the effect? Why, that that which all knew to be a fact, which occurred in the presence of twenty people, could not be proved by reason of this maxim. Could there be a more glaring instance of the manifest injustice of the operation of the principle. He was not in favour of any mode of compelling witnesses to make disclosures, he simply protested against the principle of their being allowed to evade justice on the ground that their testimony would criminate themselves.

objected to the bill indemnifying any persons whose names might be introduced by witnesses, as having been connected with mal-practices. The indemnity should only extend to prevent any thing said by a witness from being made use of against himself. He objected to the second clause.

would save the time of the House, by at once acceding to the proposition of the hon. and learned Gentleman, the Attorney-general, and withdrawing the second clause.

suggested that the revealing of confidential communications between a client and a professional man should not be allowed to be attended with prejudicial consequences to the latter.

regretted that his hon. Friend had consented to withdraw the clause. It was for the dignity of the House to accompany the severe proceedings which it was about to institute by a general indemnity clause. It would become the House to say, that as they were about to create unusual powers, those powers should not be used for the hurt of any persons; and while they would expose the proceedings of late elections, they would throw around those concerned in them the mantle of general indemnity. He thought, that parties would have a right to complain, if, after having gone through the ordinary legal proceedings, they should be subjected to a fresh inquiry, of which the consequences might be penal proceedings, to which in the ordinary course of law they would not have been subjected. The object of the bill was to prevent any such proceedings; and when they made these inquiries for objects of public utility, they should put their intentions above the imputation of malignity or extraordinary severity.

thought that the effect of the bill would be to make people join to impede the law, and that it would have the effect of injuring the good which would be otherwise done by the Bribery Bill before the House. It was quite a new principle to introduce an indemnity bill for the purpose of legislation without affecting any individual. Thinking that the bill would not elicit truth, but that it would have the effect of creating evidence against parties who must necessarily be absent when that evidence was given— under all these circumstances, believing that the bill was an anomaly, that it would be of little or no use, he would oppose the third reading.

said, that if the investigation of the hon. Member for Bath was to be carried on, they must examine witnesses connected with bribery, and it would be impossible to carry on that investigation unless they provided indemnity against the evidence which witnesses were to bear before the committee. But there was one observation which seemed to be lost sight of on the other side of the House. Witnesses were not to be indemnified in giving evidence, but it was to be in the discretion of the committee to grant to the witness a certificate, which would have the effect of screening him from prosecution, and therefore it would be only cases in which the witness had given fair and true evidence, that the indemnity would be granted. As regarded the second clause, he did not deem it very highly important, whether or not it should pass, but there were reasons why it should. With respect to the suggestion which had been thrown out with reference to evidence given by attorneys, it should be recollected that such evidence was often given by consent of their clients, and he thought that persons giving such consent, should, in such cases, be indemnified.

rose to call the attention of the right hon. Baronet, the First Lord of the Treasury, to a vote which the House had come to in his absence, opposing a reduction of duty upon cotton, and to another and a similar vote, opposing a reduction of duty on wool—two articles of raw material. The decision of the House on these points he considered to be contrary to the principles laid down by the right hon. Baronet, when he stated his anxiety generally to relieve from duty as much as possible articles of raw material, and he would submit that, whatever amount of money might be raised as duty on these substances, that it was a question for consideration, whether Government would not lose more by a diminution in the Excise and Customs revenues paid on the articles consumed by the labouring classes. Many branches of trade were altogether lost by being under-sold to the amount of only 4 or 5 per cent.; and, he trusted, that the right hon. Baronet would take the cases to which he had alluded under his consideration.

said, he had proposed an Income-tax for the purpose of procuring a surplus revenue, and he could not look at the subject alluded to by the hon. Member exclusively with reference to those considerations upon which the hon. Member had touched. He could not consent to sacrifice the revenue,—nearly 800,000.l. derived from the duties on raw cotton and wool.

objected to the reduction of duty, that it might produce great inconvenience in this branch of the British manufactures. He should move to leave the duties as they stood at present, which did not amount to a protection exceeding more than 5 per cent. As he considered his proposition was founded in a just regard for the large amount of capital embarked in throwing mills, he should take the sense of the House on it. He therefore moved that the blank be filled up with 1s. 6d.

seconded the motion, and said, it was a bad thing to recognize the principles of free-trade with respect to the manufacture of silk alone before they were generally introduced. The adoption of Mr. Huskisson's plan, as applied to that manufacture, had had a most injurious effect on the wages of the work people which had been reduced one-half. He believed if that plan, were followed out as now proposed, it would finally cause the total ruin of the silk manufacture in this country. Free-trade might under certain circumstances be beneficial, but the silk trade in this country had always been a protected trade, and the diminution of the protection which had already been made, had almost ruined one large branch of it, that depending chiefly on manual labour. The hand-loom weavers in the silk trade were in a state of great destitution. On these accounts he should cordially support the motion of his hon. Colleague.

thought this particular reduction on thrown silk did not carry out the principles of the tariff, the present protection was a reasonable one. He would take upon himself to say, that since the adoption of free-trade principles with regard to the silk trade, no improvement in the machinery for silk manufacture had been made. The Jacquard loom was not introduced by Mr. Huskisson's measures; it had been in use long before. The quantity of silk worked up had undergone no increase, and since that trade had been subjected to the curse of free-trade theories, they had seen only one solitary silk mill erected through the length and the breadth of the land. Here, then, was a trade which had gone on flourishing for years under the benumbing influence, as it was termed, of a protective system; and which had been no sooner subjected to the experiments and theories of modern political philosophers, than its prosperity was arrested; no more foreign silk was introduced and worked up, and, with one solitary exception, no silk mill had been since then erected throughout the country. No doubt the late Secretary of the Board of Trade, and the clerks of the Customs, had stated before the Import Duties Committee that the silk trade had improved; but it would have been more discreet in them to have said, that they were not competent to answer those questions, and that the proper source of information was the silk manufacturers themselves. The most influential of them had been examined before the committee of 1832, and they had described the ruinous effect entailed upon the silk trade by Mr. Huskisson's measure of 1826. They were removing prohibitory duties at a time when foreign powers were adopting an entirely different policy. What was America doing? What was France doing? The conduct of the American Government, and the feelings of the American people, were exhibited in a speech of Mr. Clay, in which he said, that— "

His experience had led him to defend a large protection to native industry—that free-trade was a splendid vision of philosophers, but a vision practically repudiated by all the nations of the world, and that the advance which America had made in free-trade principles, had been the cause of her commercial failure."

He did not understand the ground upon which this reduction of the duty upon silk was proposed, and he should certainly vote against it.

would not follow the hon. Gentleman through all the remarks which he had made, but would simply refer to the effect which the present proposal would be likely to have upon the silk trade. The hon. Gentleman had strongly condemned the policy which Mr. Huskisson had pursued; and, in support of his argument, had compared the prices of two years under the prohibitory and under a more free system. But the hon. Gentleman had taken the years 1825 and 1826, which were known to have been years of extraordinary speculation. Upon the figures which the hon. Gentleman had himself quoted, he had made out no case against the present motion. With regard to it, it would be admitted that a sufficient protection was now given to the throwsters of England, in comparison with the quantity of raw silk imported, as was proved by the fact that the quantity of thrown silk imported had been gradually diminishing from 345,0001bs. to 252,0001bs. The throwsters themselves had come forward, and supported a reduction of the duty on thrown silk, provided the system of debentures was done away with. In fact, under the proposed change, the uniform duty of 1s., without the system of debentures, would be a protection fully equal to the present duties, which varied from 1s. 6d. to 3s. 6d. per lb. with it. By imposing a moderate duty on thrown silk, they would place themselves in a more favourable position for entering into engagements with foreign countries as to the importation of raw silk. The present proposal was no diminution of duty, but it was a duty levied in an equally effective and far more convenient manner.

had picked out no particular years for his argument. He had taken the general state of the trade before and after Mr. Huskisson's proposal.

thought, notwithstanding the remark of the hon. Member for Whitehaven, that he had not dealt fairly with the subject. The hon. Member had rested his arguments on the years of such extraordinary speculation, that one manufacturer then put an advertisement in the public papers offering employment to 1000 additional hands.

5,000 additional hands.

I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for confirming and extending my statement.

Though there was an advertisement for 5,000, it was not bonâ fide—it was put forth for effect, and in consequence of some differences which that manufacturer had had with his men. Mr. Huskisson knew the facts to he so, although he gave them to the House in the manner just stated by the right hon. Vice-President of the Board of Trade. I informed Mr. Huskisson of the real circumstances of that case, yet he came down to the House and made a statement wholly contrary to the information which he had received. I never before had an opportunity of mentioning this in public, and I gladly avail myself of the present occasion.

regretted, that the rules of order in that House did not prohibit those terms of censure regarding the dead which could not be used with reference to the living. It filled him with surprise to learn that any hon. Member in that House should consider the proposed duty an insufficient protection. He certainly should resist the present motion, or any other which went to increase protection.

protested against the doctrines both of the hon. Member for Macclesfield and of the hon. Member for Whitehaven. They recommended the repeal of Mr. Huskisson's measures, and a recurrence to the old protective system. To such a change the constituency which he had the honour to represent would look with dismay. The manufacturers with whom he was best acquainted desired no such protections as those now proposed; all that they wanted was, that the Legislature should do them justice in other respects. There had been considerable improvements in machinery for throwing silk; and as an illustration of that fact he might mention one curious circumstance. Avery large silk mill was first erected in Derby by Sir Thomas Lombe, who received a patent on condition that he should lodge a model of his mill in the Tower of London, where it had remained to the present day. The mechanism of that mill was of the most barbarous description, and in the course of years it became a mere curiosity — a memento, in fact, of the great inferiority of the machinery of bygone days. And what effect did the measure of Mr. Huskisson produce? The old and inferior machinery was gradually swept away, and a new and improved kind was brought into operation, by which a greater quantity silk was thrown, and more profits realised. However it might suit some hon. Gentlemen to sneer at political economists, and those who were called "reformers of our commercial laws," he must say, that he knew of no higher and prouder character that a British statesman could enjoy than that of being a reformer of our commercial code. With respect to the duty on thrown silk, he must confess, that although he was frequently in correspondence with his constituents, not one of them had yet expressed the slightest objection or disapprobation of this proposition of the Government. But while they did not object to the principles of free-trade being applied to their own case, they certainly felt themselves treated hardly, and with crying injustice, because the same principles which were applied to their trade were not at the same time applied to those commodities which they consumed and upon which they subsisted. They asked only a fair field and no favour; they were ready to compete with foreigners upon equal terms, but they said "Do not permit the gross injustice of acting upon perfectly different principles when you are dealing with those articles of consumption without which we cannot live."

objected to the proposed amount of duty, and said, that the right hon. Gentleman opposite had himself admitted that a duty of 20 per cent., would afford ample protection. This article was not dealt with on the same principle as other articles in the tariff, because, in point of fact, the old duty was to remain. He considered this impolitic on many grounds, and thought that it would have the effect of encouraging smuggling. During the last twelve years, silk manufactures from France of the value of 12,130,000l. had obtained admission into this country, while on 1,875,000l. worth of it only had the duty been paid. This proved the disadvantage of high duties, and he could only say, that in this respect, this country did not reciprocate as they ought with foreign countries. He moved, as an amendment, that foreign manufactured silk goods should only pay an ad valorem duty of 20 per cent.

could not deny that the proposed duty upon manufactured silk was high, and admitted that great advantages would result from a reciprocal commercial intercourse between this country and France. He trusted, however, that looking to the state of the negotiations pending between France and England, the House would not press the Government too hastily upon this point. England had made offers to France which he believed would not only be attended with great pecuniary and commercial advantages to both countries, but would also tend to allay those unfortunate differences which of late years had grown up between them. A proposition highly advantageous to both countries was made some time ago, but had not yet been acceded to by France; and he very much doubted whether, if the House now went too far upon a principle which abstractedly was very good in itself, and gave to French productions the advantage of a readier admission into this country, there would not be danger, looking to the present feeling of France, that the advantage of a reciprocal admission of English manufactures into that country would be postponed. The present Government had expressed its readiness to carry out the treaty proposed by its predecessors. France had not yet acceded to it. Under these circumstances, he trusted that the House would not press propositions of the character just submitted by the hon. and learned Member for Bolton. It would not be well to make concessions to France, until an equivalent could be obtained from her.

thought, that in the present state of our commercial relations with France, the House would exercise a sound discretion in leaving this question in the hands of the Government. A treaty had not only been in negotiation between the two countries, but as far as the commercial part of it was concerned, had been actually agreed to. The terms of the treaty had been submitted to no less than three governments of France, that of Count Mole, M. Thiers, and M. Guizot, and up to a certain point had been agreed to by each, but unfortunately had ultimately been rejected by all, solely on account of the political differences which had arisen between the two countries. In truth, the difficulties interposed to the ratification of the treaty were purely political—there was no difficulty or obstacle upon the mere commercial part of it. He understood from the right hon. Baronet that he was prepared to adhere to the treaty as left by the late Government; but that the government of France had not yet acceded to it. In this state of things, it would be a pity that the House should interfere. Though he thought much advantage would result from a reduction of the duty on French manufactured silk, he should, upon the present occasion, unite with the right hon. Baronet in resisting the amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Bolton. He would take that opportunity of stating that although he thought the Government of England would be perfectly right in entering into a commercial treaty with France, stipulating for the reduction of the duty on certain articles of our manufactures in return for a similar reduction of duty on certain articles of French manufactures, he yet hoped that our Government would be cautious how they pushed the principle too far. He thought it would be most inexpedient for this country to tie itself up too much by engagements to other countries, in respect to the precise amount of customs duties to be levied upon particular articles. He was the more anxious to say this, in consequence of something which fell from the right hon. Gentleman, the other evening, in the debate on the sugar duties. He hoped that, in reference to such an article as sugar, upon which so great a portion of our revenue depended, the Government would be cautious how, in entering into any treaty with other countries, they bound themselves to levy any specific and positive amount of duty.

agreed with his hon. and learned Friend, that it would be very desirable to reduce the duty on manufactured silk; but after the speech of the right hon. Baronet, he trusted that his hon. and learned Friend would not press his amendment.

after the declaration made by the right hon. Baronet, would not press his amendment.

thought that the hon. Member for Bolton acted judiciously in declining to press the House to a division. But at the same time, he could not refrain from expressing his doubts of the justice of the grounds on which the Government refused to reduce the duty on French silks. It was admitted by all that great benefits would result from an extended commercial intercourse between the two countries. Government had thought it expedient to postpone any reduction of duty, in the hope that they would obtain concessions from France, but he doubted whether they would arrive at the wished-for results by mutual concessions, instead of acting independently at once. The right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government said, on a former occasion, that it was the interest of this country to buy in the cheapest markets, whether other countries did so or not. When the right hon. Baronet had declared that he would not ultimately persevere in the present system of prohibition, he thought the wisest policy for this country to pursue would be at once to admit to our own market those articles which were required, and to regulate our commercial policy according to our own interests, and he was persuaded that no long time would elapse before other nations would follow the example. He did not think if they reduced the duty on French commodities, that France would increase the duty on linen yarn. If it did, the smuggler would at once redress the inequality, and the only result would be, that the revenue of France would suffer.

admitted that this was a great and important concession, but he wished to ask the right hon. Baronet whether he would not consent to put the same duty on the goods exported by India to this country, as was levied by India on the goods imported into India, being 3½ per cent.

hoped the House would bear in mind the extreme difficulty which Government experienced in defending every separate article in the tariff. The hon. Member admitted that they had made a great and important concession, in reducing the duty on the article in question, from 20 to 5 per cent., and what Government attempted to do was, to attempt to approximate, as nearly as possible, to justice, without giving a great shock to any interest. They may have fallen short in their attempts in some particular cases, but looking to the tariff, as a whole, he thought they had taken the wisest course. No one felt more strongly than he did the claims which India had on the consideration of this country, but he hoped the House would not forget that the reduction in the present case was from 20 to 5 per cent., and he, therefore, trusted the hon. Gentleman would not take the sense of the House on his proposal.